Think it kind of is tho, especially if your are picking near the top.I was just pointing out that maybe 1 on 1 isn't the best measure of how a player will perform in a 5 on 5 sport.
Is it perfect? No, but it's probably the single best indicator.
Think it kind of is tho, especially if your are picking near the top.I was just pointing out that maybe 1 on 1 isn't the best measure of how a player will perform in a 5 on 5 sport.
Single best indicator? no way. How they have played in actual games is the single best indicator... Dante's case is unique there in that he hadn't played much if any meaningful basketball.Think it kind of is tho, especially if your are picking near the top.
Is it perfect? No, but it's probably the single best indicator.
For him you'd want to see it... but if he had played college you'd also have a more meaningful sample of his *** scoring.If a team was thinking about taking Exum top 5 based on his upside them you saw his scoring package in a 1 v 1?
That's a pretty great indicator because it turns out Exum was completely *** at scoring.
Single best indicator in a gym setting. Of course film is different, but I mean getting a prospect in your gym the single best thing you could do is 1 v 1 to evaluate them. Even better than 5 on 5 imoSingle best indicator? no way. How they have played in actual games is the single best indicator... Dante's case is unique there in that he hadn't played much if any meaningful basketball.
If guys were like sized it would give you an idea of how they will work in isolation on offense and defense, but that is a fraction of the real game.
I mean if you add that huge qualifier then sure. Especially if you have film already.Single best indicator in a gym setting. Of course film is different, but I mean getting a prospect in your gym the single best thing you could do is 1 v 1 to evaluate them. Even better than 5 on 5 imo
I mean, you get prospects in your gym for a reason.I mean if you add that huge qualifier then sure. Especially if you have film already.
Yeah... I'd want to get to know them as well. I just wouldn't let what I see in an open workout totally supersede my assessment of the player. Especially if its one on none type of deal where dudes are just shooting in an empty gym. I also think with the bonkers workout schedule you could get a guy with dead legs and he looks like ****.I mean, you get prospects in your gym for a reason.
If you are working out top guys they arent going around everywhere and working out. The top guys are working out for a small handful of teams.Yeah... I'd want to get to know them as well. I just wouldn't let what I see in an open workout totally supersede my assessment of the player. Especially if its one on none type of deal where dudes are just shooting in an empty gym. I also think with the bonkers workout schedule you could get a guy with dead legs and he looks like ****.
Overall I am not sure if these workouts help or hurt draft evaluators.
That’s true… I was talking about more common workouts… like part of the reason Don buried Hart in his workout here was schedule and he was tired… iirc he said so in a podcast.If you are working out top guys they arent going around everywhere and working out. The top guys are working out for a small handful of teams.
You need a Joe Ingles just to start in terms of how you fill the gaps. Who are the other players with Ingles’ skill set (on and off the floor)? Who are the backline rim-protectors that also spread the floor? Who are the quality Jack-of-all-trades big wings that are just sitting around waiting to be signed? This is what I mean by “high-level role players of nearly equal rarity.” The Mitchell Gobert build needs those kinds of gaps filled.
It’s hard to build a championship team, that’s not a reason to not try. When the team you have isn’t that in a very embarrassing way, it’s rational to try something else.
